Acer Mews

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices andthey decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’sneeds.

Suitable care plans were in place but the quality of these varied across the home and they were often task based. However, some people’s care plans contained good levels of detail about people’s strengths, needs and preferences. Staff generally knew people well and understood how to effectively meet people’s needs and people were generally happy with how they were supported.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service worked with people with a variety of complex needs and people and their families were becoming more confident that the service understood and could meet their needs safely. People were generally supported by a consistent staff team and communication processes were generally improving across the home. One health care professional commented, “They have a more established staff team which again has brought some positive collaborative working.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Systems were in place to ensure information was accessible to people. The provider was able to adapt information to formats to meet people’s needs. Information about the service was available within the reception area. The registered manager had identified the need for information, such as menus to be in a pictorial format but this had not yet been fully embedded to ensure menu were available in a variety of formats.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There were systems in place to support people to feedback their comments, including meetings and surveys. Kitchen staff told us, “I do get feedback from families who are here often. I try and order in the things that people want.” The activity staff worked with people and families to identify interests and establish preferences for activities and wellbeing.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access other services and the community as needed. Staff would arrange for care to be provided onsite for people where this was needed and work with partner agencies to ensure people were able to access specialist service where this was needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were encouraged to remain active and access the community. The activity worker told us, “I like to use the resident’s life histories in more simplified ways to build the things they enjoy doing.” One person told us, “The activities are brilliant. We play games in the kitchen or dining room. I want to start a vegetable patch that [staff member] is helping me with.” Another person told us, “There isn’t really things I join in with but [staff] give me the newspapers and chat with me. I have a nice room with TV so I’m happy with that a lot of the time.”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were receiving kind and caring support as they approached the end of the life. However, the care plans relating to planning for the future did not always include people’s aspirations or preferences. The plans were often task orientated and lacked person centred detail about the care people wanted to receive in relation to end of life care.